4 ms·

I get that times change and what may once have been an acceptable work of public art may be less palatable. Certainly a mural showing the conquest of native Ame

I get that times change and what may once have been an acceptable work of public art may be less palatable. Certainly a mural showing the conquest of native Americans is perhaps not suited to a public space. However destroying it is totally bone headed. Move it to a gallery or museum so future generations can see the journey that's been taken.

maxerickson 7y ago
I would take issue with prominent display of artwork celebrating the conquest of Native Americans, I don't understand why showing it is necessarily a problem. The mural in question is essentially criticizing the way that schools have presented that part of US history.
- neonate 7y ago
  The artist was a communist. Surely he wasn't celebrating it. In fact, unless I read the article wrong, it's clear that he was critiquing it.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Yes of course. I was explicitly qualifying what I said there because this is the internet.
CydeWeys 7y ago
Unfortunately it can be uniquely hard to move murals. God knows why it costs $600k to destroy one though; this job should actually cost $100 or less, paint and labor all-in.
- koolba 7y ago
  It should cost either $0 (i.e. don’t do it) or the cost of materials (by having the students paint over it). Though it seems like even they don’t particular care about removing them: > And yet many of the school’s actual students seemed to disagree. Of 49 freshmen asked to write about the murals, according to The Times, only four supported their removal.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  I wonder who the bulk of that $600k will go to (certainly not the laborers!) and what their relationship is to the people who decided to spend that much.
  - krick 7y ago
    Obviously, whomever made the proposal.
wpietri 7y ago
I'd be perfectly happy to see high-res scans taken. To the extent that people want to preserve art that is now seen as unacceptably racist for children's schools, they can create a virtual museum that provides the proper contextualization. And we can do that for all art. Given that digital storage verges on free, there's little reason not to preserve every bit of art, from a kid's refrigerator drawings on up. It'd be fascinating to see Picasso's work from his first scribble, for example. And who knows what future generations will make of it.
- fredley 7y ago
  High Res scans are good, but particularly for both a mural or an oil painting, a huge amount of information is lost with a scan, however high res. It's also the case for almost any other medium. To take oil painting for example: a painting is usually composed of layer upon layer of translucent paint. The way it alters light cannot be captured in a 2D scan, it is a very complex, 3D laminar object, before you even get to impasto technique. To see a Picasso in real life (or any painting) is vastly more rewarding than just seeing a picture of it. And incidentally you can see almost every scribble Picasso ever made, there's a museum in Barcelona containing much of his early work, including sketchbooks.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Seen as by who? Isn't that a large assumption about a seemingly tiny minority that generally takes issue with everything. The vast majority can see and understand the mural for what it is. Even if does have to be removed, it's also clear that moving and preserving it in a museum is both cheaper and far better than spending more to destroy it completely. Erasing history like this is no win for anyone.
lobotryas 7y ago
Why not? Now, more than ever, we can see this as a tragedy and great wrong. Would you consider that a “mural showing the Holocaust is perhaps not suited for a public space”? Of course you wouldn’t. This mural doesn’t glorify and we can add context around it to make it into a teachable situation instead of trying to erase history.

maxerickson 7y ago

I would take issue with prominent display of artwork celebrating the conquest of Native Americans, I don't understand why showing it is necessarily a problem. The mural in question is essentially criticizing the way that schools have presented that part of US history.

neonate 7y ago
The artist was a communist. Surely he wasn't celebrating it. In fact, unless I read the article wrong, it's clear that he was critiquing it.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Yes of course. I was explicitly qualifying what I said there because this is the internet.

CydeWeys 7y ago

Unfortunately it can be uniquely hard to move murals. God knows why it costs $600k to destroy one though; this job should actually cost $100 or less, paint and labor all-in.

koolba 7y ago
It should cost either $0 (i.e. don’t do it) or the cost of materials (by having the students paint over it). Though it seems like even they don’t particular care about removing them: > And yet many of the school’s actual students seemed to disagree. Of 49 freshmen asked to write about the murals, according to The Times, only four supported their removal.
darkpuma 7y ago
I wonder who the bulk of that $600k will go to (certainly not the laborers!) and what their relationship is to the people who decided to spend that much.
- krick 7y ago
  Obviously, whomever made the proposal.

wpietri 7y ago

I'd be perfectly happy to see high-res scans taken. To the extent that people want to preserve art that is now seen as unacceptably racist for children's schools, they can create a virtual museum that provides the proper contextualization. And we can do that for all art. Given that digital storage verges on free, there's little reason not to preserve every bit of art, from a kid's refrigerator drawings on up. It'd be fascinating to see Picasso's work from his first scribble, for example. And who knows what future generations will make of it.

fredley 7y ago
High Res scans are good, but particularly for both a mural or an oil painting, a huge amount of information is lost with a scan, however high res. It's also the case for almost any other medium. To take oil painting for example: a painting is usually composed of layer upon layer of translucent paint. The way it alters light cannot be captured in a 2D scan, it is a very complex, 3D laminar object, before you even get to impasto technique. To see a Picasso in real life (or any painting) is vastly more rewarding than just seeing a picture of it. And incidentally you can see almost every scribble Picasso ever made, there's a museum in Barcelona containing much of his early work, including sketchbooks.
manigandham 7y ago
Seen as by who? Isn't that a large assumption about a seemingly tiny minority that generally takes issue with everything. The vast majority can see and understand the mural for what it is. Even if does have to be removed, it's also clear that moving and preserving it in a museum is both cheaper and far better than spending more to destroy it completely. Erasing history like this is no win for anyone.

lobotryas 7y ago

Why not? Now, more than ever, we can see this as a tragedy and great wrong. Would you consider that a “mural showing the Holocaust is perhaps not suited for a public space”? Of course you wouldn’t. This mural doesn’t glorify and we can add context around it to make it into a teachable situation instead of trying to erase history.